Introducing…

I am happy to be blogging at The American Catholic, which I have always known to be one of the most significant blogs covering the intersection of politics and the Faith. To have a public space in which Catholics are not expected to apologize for being Americans or espousing American values is more important today than perhaps it has ever been. And it is my belief that the values that have defined America are not incompatible with the truths of the Catholic faith, but are in many respects extensions of them.

So let me tell you about myself and what you can expect from me.

By education and profession, I am a political theorist. I greatly enjoy exploring Catholic Social Teaching, particularly the encyclicals of Pope Leo XIII. I don’t have much to say about theological or liturgical disputes, though I will let it be known that I frequent the Latin Mass.

I espouse political views that can be classifed as “paleo”, whether they are paleo-conservative or paleo-libertarian (depending on the issue). My political influences are John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Pope Leo XIII, the Austrian school of economics, Pat Buchanan, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Thomas Woods Jr., and of course, Ron Paul, the man who converted me to the paleo-political diet in the first place.

I am not the least bit ashamed of Catholic history. I do not apologize for the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, or any of the other “black legends” that were spread by the lying enemies of the Church. I do not believe that the history of the Church has been one of terrible crimes against humanity for which she must atone. On the contrary, I am an unahsamed cultural elitist. I believe Western Christian culture is the best thing to ever happen to humanity, providing us with the most magnificent technology, art, architecture, and moral values known on the planet, and that none of it would have been possible without the guidance of the Catholic Church.

I don’t bow to political correctness, and that includes the right-wing version alongside the more familiar left-wing version. Chances are I will offend you at some point if I haven’t already. At the same time, there is no position I take that I am not willing to defend with arguments, and there are many issues I would be willing to change my mind on.

Also, how does one say “Bonchamps”? I’m reading it as the same as “bond” without the D, then “champs” like champion, but I’m also the person who thought switching the E and the R in “foxfire” made perfect sense.

I have been waiting for my chance to explain the differences between Libertarian, Libertine and Anarchist, as many in the conservative sphere confuse these, and wrongly. Perhaps I will have the privilege of bowing to a more erudite provider of such clarity now.

WK Aiken-
blame fellow users of the terms! I’ve seen folks self-label as “libertarian” for everything from ‘anarchy with teams’ through ‘basically totalitarian but with traditional values stripped out.’

I still love my definition: an anarchist that likes getting paid for his work. (Yes, that’s a joke.)

Also, you forgot “Liberal-tarian.” ;^p

There could be a great series of posts with folks just explaining what they mean when they use a term — heck, I didn’t even know I was a “three prong conservative” until someone else used it to describe me. (Social, fiscal, military.) Helps avoid Humpty-Dumpty headdesks.

“Users of terms” indeed, and sadly, a battle I continue to fight despite a string of enormous failures and accusations of everything from stupidity to heresy. Talk about your “voice crying in the wildnerness . . .”

Nonetheless, being utterly and intractably convinced that Christianity (and, specifically, Catholicism) and Libertarianism are indelibly knit to the point where you cannot have the second without the first to inform it, I will continue to bang my head against whatever brick walls present themselves.

I will not venture into the morass here, since there’s no such thing as a “quick” explanation, but suffice it to say that if it resembles Fascism in any way, it’s neither Christian nor Libertarian, and that all I have to say about that.

I am quite familiar with Distributism, so we can certainly discuss it.

WK,

I think Rothbard was a wonderful writer who had a lot of great ideas. He also had some pretty terrible ideas, and I don’t think he developed a really consistent philosophy. I think he was a potential Catholic who never quite made it, and that is sad to me.

And in any movement, terms will get mixed up. Ask at an anti-war protest or university teach-in what “socialism” is and you’ll get 50 different answers from 50 different groups. “Libertarianism” is subject to the same sort of thing.

I usually call myself a classical liberal, or paleolibertarian when I want to deliberately cause people to ask questions.

Yay, a Ron Paul supporter blogging here, I have in the past 4 months been reading all the people you suggested. I would love to discuss things with you. Have you heard of Jeff Tucker too. He is a Catholic Libertarian who blogs for chant cafe, and laissiz faire-books at lfb.org, and Acton Institute too. I love how this presents something different to the present political choices we have, but things are changing and people are going to have to wake up and smell the coffee.